If they have the time to reject an image why can't they add 3 or 4 words to explain what it was rejected for?
I mean if they are that strict and selective the time it takes to provide "some" sort of explanation should not be that big a deal??
By @Chris22947351m009
Moderators have very little time to pass with one asset, so they need to be effective. The refusal is one of X redefined reasons, and it's always the first issue the moderator sees that triggers the refusal. I would like to point out that this is not a photographic school and that the aim is not to make you a better photographer, but to sell high quality stock assets to paying customers. So, no, having to add a note to each refusal is a big deal. Then there is the language problem. Moderators are from everywhere in the world, and they check submitted items from everyone in the world. In what language would you write the critique?
The real issue is “technical issue” is used for all faults that are “photographers errors”, “post-processing errors”, and “sensor errors”. So, it's very broad, and it's up to you to check the photography with a critical eye. Most of what gets presented here contains multiple errors, and we check for all errors that we see. It doesn't mean, however, that it is the error the moderator saw.
And you err in that sense that you think, niche target audience gets vetted more stringently. It's probably the inverse. There is an abundant database of cat images, so if you want to contribute, they not only need to be good, they must be perfect in every sense.
Let's take 4210:
Apart from the noise in the background that could be addressed in post-processing, you have (a slight) focussing error. Instead of the cat's eye, the cushion in front is the sharpest point (here seen at 100%).
I would also post process the eye, that it draws the viewer's attention.
As for 2237, it's out of focus and noisy. When taking pictures at ISO 2000 with that camera, I would expect some noise and I would need to put significant effort in to denoise.
As for your rocket picture, they are awfully out of focus (here seen at 100%).
The skeleton could also trigger an IP rejection, as you could consider that design somehow special.
If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
AdChoices